Why do so many people hate walmart

[Stalliongrad 982]

Personally I love Wal-mart but i think the concept of a big box store does not work in some areas. It damages the flavor of areas that previously were home to Mom and Pop stores. But that's capitalism. If you can't compete you go out of business. I don't like how many of them their are but again that's capitalism (supply/demand). Its the "Foundation of our entire economy". They do usually have quite a bit of things i want and the prices have gotten better. It has actually gotten to the point where now they carry groceries. Its cheaper to get groceries at a big box store like Target or Wal-Mart than it is to go to a Grocery store. Eventually they will become a thing of the past too. I agree, Wal-Mart has that problem there are always about 18/20 registers but only 5 are ever open at one time. And i'm not exaggerating by saying that. Even during the holiday's only about 5. The problem is that they will never be able to do a "Self checkout" set up at big box store's because the potential for shoplifting goes wayyy up. As for the whole discrimination thing. That's real and it happens everywhere but in today's society we are to scared to talk about it. Or we refuse to believe such a thing still happens. Big box stores are always a reflection of their regional corporate offices. One of the Wal-Mart stores in my area was under that review because the hiring manager was racist. The store's employees were ALL white but i live in an area that is very very diverse. That made it very noticeable. I dislike Wal-Mart for what it has become now. Wal-Mart used to just be an average big box store. You could get Clothes, Electronics, Appliances etc. Now they all have a Starbucks or a Subway. The one in my area actually has a McDonalds and a Hair Salon. (no joke). Thats why i dislike it now. Its just always crowded. Target is better they haven't quite fallen into that hole yet.

[BronyPony 575]

People that blame Wal-Mart for their "exploit" of overseas opportunities need to do a bit of business themselves before judging a business by the way the media does portray them. Though I am against the exploitation of some bad conditions you have to look at what Wal-Mart has to deal with. With the government regulations of the United States, the problem is Wal-Mart can't really pay that amount in the U.S., especially with the minimum wage. If you owned your own business your task is to find the cheapest way to run one. If there is an opportunity the natural reaction is to use that system. In fact, people should be blaming the foreign governments and our own government for this issue, not the businesses.

 

Though I admit Wal-Mart sells cheap items, the question is why? Because most likely with the amount of government taxes imposed on products it is kind of impossible to actually give something with good quality.

Edited March 31, 2013 by BronyPony

[~Master~ Button Mash 2,307]

Because Wal-Mart has the potential to consolidate market power into only a few hands, which brings the dangers of monopoly. At which point it is no longer true capitalism and becomes cronyism.

 

Personally, I don't like big box stores because they're usually kinda depressing inside. Either they're dirty and grey, or dull and cold. I know atmosphere usually isn't something someone should have at the top of the list when it comes to shopping, but still...

[BronyPony 575]

Because Wal-Mart has the potential to consolidate market power into only a few hands, which brings the dangers of monopoly. At which point it is no longer true capitalism and becomes cronyism.

That isn't true at all, and in any case if it does happen it is due to government corruption. All businesses have the opportunity of producing large business based on the quality of their products. Wal-Mart is a great business because it provides people with the right services, though their employees could be better. The quality of product determines the success of a business. Wal-Mart produced good quality service, there it is more successful. 

Edited March 31, 2013 by BronyPony

[~Master~ Button Mash 2,307]

That isn't true at all, and in any case if it does happen it is due to government corruption. All businesses have the opportunity of producing large business based on the quality of their products. Wal-Mart is a great business because it provides people with the right services, though their employees could be better. The quality of product determines the success of a business. Wal-Mart produced good quality service, there it is more successful. 

But it is their lobbying dollars which make that corruption possible. I wouldn't be as concerned about such large corporations if there were better safeguards in our government to protect policy makers from lobbyist dollars and cronyism. 

[BronyPony 575]

But it is their lobbying dollars which make that corruption possible. I wouldn't be as concerned about such large corporations if there were better safeguards in our government to protect policy makers from lobbyist dollars and cronyism. 

There is no evidence of Wal-Mart "lobbying" dollars to corrupt government. Wal-Mart, like any other business, has done its job of providing successful services and all businesses are equal in that sense. In fact, the more government regulation on business the more government corruption that is likely going to happen.

[~Master~ Button Mash 2,307]

There is no evidence of Wal-Mart "lobbying" dollars to corrupt government. Wal-Mart, like any other business, has done its job of providing successful services and all businesses are equal in that sense. In fact, the more government regulation on business the more government corruption that is likely going to happen.

A lot of businesses contribute money through third party organizations like political action committees which corrupt politicians that way.

 

I don't think regulation is wholly and inherently negative. Rather it's a matter of having the right regulations and deregulations. After all, there's countries like Germany which seem to find an ideal balance between business and government. Too much power given to either one can be bad. 

[BronyPony 575]

A lot of businesses contribute money through third party organizations like political action committees which corrupt politicians that way.

 

I don't think regulation is wholly and inherently negative. Rather it's a matter of having the right regulations and deregulations. After all, there's countries like Germany which seem to find an ideal balance between business and government. Too much power given to either one can be bad. 

But money doesn't determine who wins an election or not. It is the people who elect the representatives to do their job within the United States government. If the people vote for a corrupt politician, that is the people's fault.

 

Regulations have done more harm than good. Minimum wage causes businesses to have to raise their prices on their goods AND it does not promote increased producivity within the business. Also, increased taxes on higher-income people causes the poor to remain poor because people can never go beyond the poverty level because of the high taxes. Taxes on export goods causes businesses to avoid foreign trade, which in fact is helpful for a health economy.

[~Master~ Button Mash 2,307]

But money doesn't determine who wins an election or not. It is the people who elect the representatives to do their job within the United States government. If the people vote for a corrupt politician, that is the people's fault.

 

Regulations have done more harm than good. Minimum wage causes businesses to have to raise their prices on their goods AND it does not promote increased producivity within the business. Also, increased taxes on higher-income people causes the poor to remain poor because people can never go beyond the poverty level because of the high taxes. Taxes on export goods causes businesses to avoid foreign trade, which in fact is helpful for a health economy.

That's an issue of the media, which just like the government, is influenced and corrupted by corporate influence and PACs.

 

See, I don't think it's a matter of those concepts being bad period. Again, I think it's a matter of proper application. Again, there are places in the world where social programs have been properly implemented and society reaps the benefits. Part of the reason I think they are failing here is not only because of misuse, but also because we don't have the domestic industrial base we once had. And to be honest I think if we continue to drift into a strictly service economy, our current way of life is doomed no matter what economic system is put into place (it's a losing battle IMO).

[BronyPony 575]

That's an issue of the media, which just like the government, is influenced and corrupted by corporate influence and PACs.

 

See, I don't think it's a matter of those concepts being bad period. Again, I think it's a matter of proper application. Again, there are places in the world where social programs have been properly implemented and society reaps the benefits. Part of the reason I think they are failing here is not only because of misuse, but also because we don't have the domestic industrial base we once had. And to be honest I think if we continue to drift into a strictly service economy, our current way of life is doomed no matter what economic system is put into place (it's a losing battle IMO).

Well, it doesn't seem that the socialist system is working in Europe...

 

One thing I will admit is the people have become to lazy to research the information on politicians themselves. Because of this, the people have lost the power and the government is able to convince people of falsehoods and such.

 

The only reason why our economy is failing is due to government spending and irresponsible people and government. 

[EndtheRaven 161]

The fact the destroy small business. 
And make everything impossible to find with their massive labyrinths of stores. haha

[BronyPony 575]

Because they hate capitalism.  Listen people, Walmart doesn't force anyone to work for them, and if people didn't think that their wages were fair they wouldn't accept them and they'd quit.  People don't need work, they can run off into the forest and survive on leaves any time they want

I agree with this 100%. People need to stop blaming a system that has provided a nation with a powerful leadership over the world.

 

The fact the destroy small business. 

And make everything impossible to find with their massive labyrinths of stores. haha

They don't destroy small business, they destroy bad service. I don't know if this post is serious or what not, but if it is serious it is a lie that they destroy small businesses.

[~Master~ Button Mash 2,307]

Well, it doesn't seem that the socialist system is working in Europe...

 

One thing I will admit is the people have become to lazy to research the information on politicians themselves. Because of this, the people have lost the power and the government is able to convince people of falsehoods and such.

 

The only reason why our economy is failing is due to government spending and irresponsible people and government. 

Europe isn't homogenous. There's places that are better off and places that are worse off. One of those places that is better off is Germany.

 

I think that's just a side-effect of a TV-addicted society.

 

I think there's more to it than that. Indeed there's too much spending, and there's corrupt politicians that only exacerbate the problem, but I think we're going to continue to hemorrhage money if so much of our industry is outsourced and we become a mainly service economy. Service can only take an economy so far, and true economic recovery can only occur with major manufacturing, if history has shown anything.

 

http://economyincrisis.org/content/americas-trade-cannot-rely-services

Edited March 31, 2013 by AtomicBassCannon

[BronyPony 575]

Europe isn't homogenous. There's places that are better off and places that are worse off. One of those places that is better off is Germany.

 

I think that's just a side-effect of a TV-addicted society.

 

I think there's more to it than that. Indeed there's too much spending, and there's corrupt politicians that only exacerbate the problem, but I think we're going to continue to hemorrhage money if so much of our industry is outsourced and we become a mainly service economy. Service can only take an economy so far, and true economic recovery can only occur with major manufacturing, if history has shown anything.

But a service-type economy is a progressive type economy, if you consider the production of goods a service. In fact, the major difference between Capitalist democratic medicine and the socialist medicine is one can be provided "instantly" by private businesses while the other has the possibility of your government denying you medical service.

 

Germany has a "stable" economy, however they are losing it like the United States is...slowly.

 

I realize that the situation is more complex, but those are the main problems. Government programs costing major amounts money, where FEMA should be left on the state level so not one disaster will cause the fall of one giant economy. An economy should be dynamic enough to prevent natural disasters from effecting a down fall in an economy.

[~Master~ Button Mash 2,307]

But a service-type economy is a progressive type economy, if you consider the production of goods a service. In fact, the major difference between Capitalist democratic medicine and the socialist medicine is one can be provided "instantly" by private businesses while the other has the possibility of your government denying you medical service.

 

Germany has a "stable" economy, however they are losing it like the United States is...slowly.

 

I realize that the situation is more complex, but those are the main problems. Government programs costing major amounts money, where FEMA should be left on the state level so not one disaster will cause the fall of one giant economy. An economy should be dynamic enough to prevent natural disasters from effecting a down fall in an economy.

In theory, but insurance companies have just has many restrictions as nationalized medicine might have, such as pre-existing conditions clauses. 

 

The rest of the Eurozone is part of what is dragging Germany down, but the fact that they have a manufacturing base makes it easier for them to recover than the rest of Europe and the US. But their problem lies in the Eurozone, not their own social programs, which seem to function well.

Edited March 31, 2013 by AtomicBassCannon

[BronyPony 575]

In theory, but insurance companies have just has many restrictions as nationalized medicine might have, such as pre-existing conditions clauses. 

 

The rest of the Eurozone is part of what is dragging Germany down, but the fact that they have a manufacturing base makes it easier for them to recover than the rest of Europe and the US. But their problem lies in the Eurozone, not their own social programs, which seem to function well.

But if you were the manager of an insurance company, would you rather risk the lives of millions for one particular person or risk one person for the millions of others in need of health care? At least they are providing health care opportunities.

 

You can blame the Eurozone for their issues, but you can't really tell until that issue is removed. 

[~Master~ Button Mash 2,307]

But if you were the manager of an insurance company, would you rather risk the lives of millions for one particular person or risk one person for the millions of others in need of health care? At least they are providing health care opportunities.

 

You can blame the Eurozone for their issues, but you can't really tell until that issue is removed. 

In all fairness nationalized medicine provides healthcare too. In each case it's just a different person holding the purse strings, and TBH I don't think there's an "all win" scenario in either case, because inevitably someone will be denied care for whatever reason, and they are used as political fodder by either side.

 

In fact, the more I think about it, healthcare is becoming a "damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario."

 

I think we're getting off topic. LOL.

[BronyPony 575]

In all fairness nationalized medicine provides healthcare too. In each case it's just a different person holding the purse strings, and TBH I don't think there's an "all win" scenario in either case, because inevitably someone will be denied care for whatever reason, and they are used as political fodder by either side.

 

In fact, the more I think about it, healthcare is becoming a "damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario."

 

I think we're getting off topic. LOL.

It isn't the problem of providing health care, but how it is distributed. With nationalized health care, the government decides who is liable for the health care, which provides little opportunity for choice. For privatized health care, there are multiple choices that provide health care for a variety of people. 

[~Master~ Button Mash 2,307]

It isn't the problem of providing health care, but how it is distributed. With nationalized health care, the government decides who is liable for the health care, which provides little opportunity for choice. For privatized health care, there are multiple choices that provide health care for a variety of people. 

Again, that's in theory. But in reality there's just as much rationing as there would be if health care was socialized. This is a situation where I think business and government can come together and create a better system using the best of what both have to provide. It's about a balance of power, because as it stands insurance companies have too much power IMO. We need to bring about a better balance.

[Golurk 467]

For me, it's 'cuz my mom would always FORCE me to go with her EVERY SINGLE TIME she went. Until I was 16. And she STILL forced me sometimes even then. Now admittedly, having your free will and wishes infringed upon wouldn't be TOO bad (sarcasm), if not for the fact that she ALWAYS eyed everything in the store as if she was gonna get it. The vast majority of the time, she didn't. Why waste your time if you're not going to get it? Meh, mom logic.

 

And don't even get me STARTED on the jewelry-clothes section. Half the time was spent there, and we'd always get MAYBE a shirt. I'd just pick up the 1st thing I saw, and if it fits, it ships.

 

So, it basically symbolizes loss of free will, carptons of wasted time, and pointlessness in general to me. Hence why any time I have to go there anymore, I dart in, get my carp, and get out. I hate that place... 

Edited March 31, 2013 by Yosef von Uzenvard

[BronyPony 575]

Again, that's in theory. But in reality there's just as much rationing as there would be if health care was socialized. This is a situation where I think business and government can come together and create a better system using the best of what both have to provide. It's about a balance of power, because as it stands insurance companies have too much power IMO. We need to bring about a better balance.

Well, the problem is there can never be balance unless you have the 'checks and balances' system, but that would be impossible because one will always rule over the other in some way or the other. Keep government and business separate and the system will work because if business has that influence on the government it would lead to a corruption of government. The founding fathers knew what they were doing keeping government and business separate because they had experienced the treacheries of such a system. 

[~Master~ Button Mash 2,307]

Well, the problem is there can never be balance unless you have the 'checks and balances' system, but that would be impossible because one will always rule over the other in some way or the other. Keep government and business separate and the system will work because if business has that influence on the government it would lead to a corruption of government. The founding fathers knew what they were doing keeping government and business separate because they had experienced the treacheries of such a system. 

I don't know if complete separation is possible. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's impossible, because both business and government must share power over a single society, so it is inevitable that somewhere down the road they are going to cross paths. We need a system where they can coexist and interact in a way that is beneficial to society. Unfortunately we have yet to perfect that system, it seems. I think a good first step would be campaign finance reform, because as it stands the amount of corporate money in politics is an example of corporate overreach.

[BronyPony 575]

I don't know if complete separation is possible. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's impossible, because both business and government must share power over a single society, so it is inevitable that somewhere down the road they are going to cross paths. We need a system where they can coexist and interact in a way that is beneficial to society. Unfortunately we have yet to perfect that system, it seems. I think a good first step would be campaign finance reform, because as it stands the amount of corporate money in politics is an example of corporate overreach.

But, the problem is you treat a business and corporation as one particular individual when in fact it is made of thousands of individuals who vote for these politicians. Your argument assumes that business and corporation is one particular individual, which it is not.

 

Well, even the founding fathers stated it was a "experimental" system, but it has brought us up to a powerful position in the world.

[~Master~ Button Mash 2,307]

But, the problem is you treat a business and corporation as one particular individual when in fact it is made of thousands of individuals who vote for these politicians. Your argument assumes that business and corporation is one particular individual, which it is not.

 

Well, even the founding fathers stated it was a "experimental" system, but it has brought us up to a powerful position in the world.

Actually, in the eyes of the political systems, corporations DO have much of the legal authorities of individuals. Corporate personhood legislation is one of the reasons money is so rampant.

 

Our manufacturing base is one of the (if not the most important) major things that made us so powerful. Now that it's drying up, I don't know if we can maintain our current way of life. Somethings gotta give and people are going to be hurt.

[BronyPony 575]

Actually, in the eyes of the political systems, corporations DO have much of the legal authorities of individuals. Corporate personhood legislation is one of the reasons money is so rampant.

 

Our manufacturing base is one of the (if not the most important) major things that made us so powerful. Now that it's drying up, I don't know if we can maintain our current way of life. Somethings gotta give and people are going to be hurt.

Well, we can agree to disagree with that, since this argument has lasted pages in this thread xD.

 

But anyways, what was the original topic again?